You like a slut?

Slut is a term used to shame women who have a lot of sex.

Why would having a lot of sex be a bad thing? And why should it be particularly bad for a woman?
Poetry of Flesh has an interesting first-person perspective.

Progressives embrace the idea that men and women alike should be sexually free. It’s everyone’s right, right?

We’re tempted, thus, to redefine slut as “sexually passionate and promiscuous woman”, and to counteract the stigma by using the term with positive connotations: “She’s wonderful — such a slut.”

While the political plan of destigmatizing the term has some appeal, there is little indication that the stigma will be overcome  anytime soon in mainstream culture. The stigma is deep-seated and strangely powerful. More so, than that of, say, ‘gay’, today.

Beyond the intellectual considerations of a political discussion, we may ask ourselves how we feel about sluts. How do we feel about having a slut as a girlfriend, wife, or daughter?

Personally, I’d say my ideal is a woman who is very sexually passionate, but also highly selective. A woman who has experience, but no compulsion to jump random strangers. Hammer has some interesting thoughts along related lines on sluts versus hedonists and sexual-liberator game.

Baumeister and Twenge (2002) argue that slut shaming occurs mainly among females to keep the price of sex high. Their argument makes sense. Dumping willing vaginas on the market should be bad for women (except those very vaginas) and good for men: (1) Men get more sex. (2) Men get more power (as the sexual deprivation that enslaves many men is alleviated).

Nevertheless, slut shaming is widespread among men as well. And surprisingly, given that sluts give sex, especially in the sphere of game.

Personally, I won’t game a girl, lay her, and then disrespect her for being easy. I feel that that’s fucked up and prefer less conflicted relationships with women. I’ve had long-term girlfriends that slept with me on the first date. They are no less trustworthy (and not even necessarily sluttier) in my experience than girls who play chaste.

Male slut shaming may have a lot to do with sexual insecurity (“Can I compete with the others?”) and vagina envy (“Why is she getting laid more than I?”). But can we dismiss it so easily?

Here‘s a recent example from Roissy’s blog. The slut shaming on Roissy’s blog and elsewhere is part of an agenda to curb female power.

The general evolutionary-psychology argument about the discontents of today’s sexual market is compelling:

Females are attracted to powerful males. Merely equal males are never sexually attractive. This already creates a real problem for the progressive ideal of equal societal power: Equality of societal power means that most men are not attractive to females. They can get to have sex only to the degree that culture enforces monogamy, such that males and females are matched in pairs, and few are left out.

This is where  sexual liberation comes in to compound the problem. Sexual liberation means a free sexual market, unconfined by monogamy. And in a free sexual market, female sexual preference dominates. The reason for this is greater female selectivity reflecting the biological scarcity of eggs and abundance of sperm: Only a small proportion of the males is needed to keep all women constantly pregnant.

Ironically, the result of a sexual market dominated by female sexual preference is soft polygamy: few alpha males monopolize access to sex with most females. A female may suffer from her chosen alpha’s promiscuity, but not enough to settle for a male she could have to herself.

The chosen alphas reflect female sexual preference, for power, along with dark-triad traits (narcissism, machiavellianism, and psychopathy). Like the males’ promiscuity, these particular preferred traits may cause suffering for the women liberated enough to follow their sexual preference. Beyond these preferred traits, the alphas are special for their position at the center of a crowd of women. Nothing attracts a crowd of women like a crowd of women.

Indeed most men, today, are sexually frustrated to varying degrees. It’s not surprising that they are angry and aggressive. Something has to change to integrate them better. I’m just not sure that shaming sluts and reinstating 50’s-type morality will do the trick at this point.

In the interest of both genders, we cannot let sex be controlled entirely by the female brain’s sex module.

Game is one response. But will it suffice?

Does anyone have a serious answer to this?

Advertisements

11 Responses to “You like a slut?”

  1. Hammer Says:

    Honestly dude, I love Roissy, but he has some issues, or at least his blog character does. I think you hit the nail on the head with the male insecurities and vagina envy. Men who have a lot of sex and are kind of past that neediness don’t get insecure about women nailing other dudes, it just doesn’t happen. In fact, I know a couple of guys force women they’re dating to fuck other men of their choosing and come back and tell them about it. This is very different from the cuckold fantasy that is relatively common among beta men. It’s about getting off on the psychological power you have over her. It’s probably pretty unhealthy to do, but the guys who I know who are doing it happen to be very good and don’t have a needy bone in their bodies, at least when it comes to sexual validation.

  2. Poetry of Flesh Says:

    I’m still a bit shocked (and flattered) to have such direct linkage.

    And this might be a bit long and self-involved, but I promise it relates.

    I’m over-experienced for my age (26). The more I have learned of sex, of men, of life, the more selective I have become in my mate choices.

    Similar as to what you said above, it limits my dating pool. I do not want to date -or sleep with- a man below my sexual station. However, finding such a man, especially finding such a man who wants to have a monogamous relationship, is frustrating. If I waited, it would cause my sex life to plummet to nil, which I’m not willing to allow.

    In my last relationship and my current relationship, both of my partners were non-monogamous men in the sex industry in their early forties. Amazingly lucky finds for me, for my sexual/social needs.

    However, I think it is incorrect to assume that it is a problem that men are sexually frustrated and angry. Most any standard issue male, as we’ve seen with the PUA crowd, can be educated in the arts of seduction and, eventually, sex. But we’ve also seen that a good portion of these men come into the idea because of thoughts of revenge, of external blame, as opposed to acknowledgement of their own social/sexual weaknesses and a desire to learn and grow for their own betterment and success.

    I do not blame the views of socio-sexual state of things (at least in America, which is where my experience lies) for this problem, but rather the environment we have created and maintained that encourages the angry externalizing of personal inexperience in avoidance of admitting weakness and (temporary) failure.

    We all start off as inexperienced and awkward, I believe it is a matter of admitted and accepting that (which is decidedly not masculine) which would allow growth. “Alphas” are not necessarily born, but made. If the female portion of the population shifts up a level, it causes a demand for the male portion to shift up as well. Adapt or die.

    In this case, I suppose, it would be “adapt or remain an angry virgin”.

    Whatever.

    • stagetwo Says:

      interesting thoughts, poetry. i have a few comments…

      “I’m over-experienced for my age (26). The more I have learned of sex, of men, of life, the more selective I have become in my mate choices. Similar as to what you said above, it limits my dating pool. I do not want to date -or sleep with- a man below my sexual station.”

      what is a woman’s “sexual station”? take a group of 100 males and 100 females, have them rate each others’ hotness, and stand them in two rows facing each other to match their sexual rankings. the guys all want to have sex with the girls they are matched up with (and with many of the lower ranked and all of the higher ranked girls). the girls only want to have sex with higher ranked males. as an attractive woman at 26, men ranking higher than you will be glad to sleep with you, but why should they commit to you?
      no wonder then that…

      “finding such a man, especially finding such a man who wants to have a monogamous relationship, is frustrating. If I waited, it would cause my sex life to plummet to nil, which I’m not willing to allow. In my last relationship and my current relationship, both of my partners were non-monogamous men in the sex industry in their early forties. Amazingly lucky finds for me, for my sexual/social needs.”

      the key word is ‘nonmonogamous’. girls can have sex above their station (defined as percent rank among each gender) just like guys can give attention and gifts to girls above their station.

      “However, I think it is incorrect to assume that it is a problem that men are sexually frustrated and angry.”
      you think men are not frustrated and angry? or that they are but it is not a problem? please explain.

      “Most any standard issue male, as we’ve seen with the PUA crowd, can be educated in the arts of seduction and, eventually, sex. But we’ve also seen that a good portion of these men come into the idea because of thoughts of revenge, of external blame, as opposed to acknowledgement of their own social/sexual weaknesses and a desire to learn and grow for their own betterment and success. I do not blame the views of socio-sexual state of things (at least in America, which is where my experience lies) for this problem, but rather the environment we have created and maintained that encourages the angry externalizing of personal inexperience in avoidance of admitting weakness and (temporary) failure. We all start off as inexperienced and awkward, I believe it is a matter of admitted and accepting that (which is decidedly not masculine) which would allow growth.”

      “angry externalizing” is a regrettable, but unavoidable side effect of a situation where most men are not desirable for sex.
      you seem to want to brush this off as men’s personal problem which they shouldn’t bother you with. but you say yourself that accepting one’s limitations is “decidedly not masculine”. many men accept their lot anyway — and these get laid even less. so what you say “would allow growth” promises no growth for men at all. the de facto (though widely denied) female preference for aggressive assholes doesn’t help here, either. one could make a compelling case that it is amazing, in fact, that physically violent responses are so rare. men, overall, just suck it up.

      ““Alphas” are not necessarily born, but made.”
      amen to that. they are made by training and experience. and they are also made by somewhat random early female selection, which boosts their market value and confidence — sustaining higher sexual market value in the absense of genetic superiority or higher societal status.

      “If the female portion of the population shifts up a level, it causes a demand for the male portion to shift up as well. Adapt or die.”

      but the positive ideal of feminism is equality. not raising females so that men would raise even further to maintain their superiority.
      some would even say that feminism is female supremacist. but from this i take your view to be that men should dominate after all.
      correct?

      the problems remain: you can’t expect the hottest guy who will fuck you to commit to you anymore than a guy can expect the hottest girl who will talk to him to fuck him. in a free sexual market, most guys are sexually frustrated and most girls are relationship frustrated. a monogamous market promises relationship and sex for everyone — giving the average woman more relationship and the average man more sex.

  3. Linkage is Good for You: Backlog Edition (NSFW) Says:

    […] – “Sex at Her: Like Dancing to Me“, “You Like a Slut?“, “The Masterplan“, “Embrace the […]

  4. Poetry of Flesh Says:

    I realized, reading your response, that I didn’t properly define some things or fully explain myself. Now that I’m coming off a long weekend, we’ll see if I can rouse my brain to do better.

    For me, “sexual station” is not physical attractiveness. I suppose I would call that “physical station”. Sexual station, in my view, is a combination of sexual experience, sexual ability, and the social/sexual knowledge and psychology that the existence of the previous two traits indicate. For me, I would rather sleep with an average looking man who was a knowledgeable lover with a partner count of 200+ than a fantastic looking man who was an average lover with a partner count in the 20-range.

    While I am not sure if your theory would change based on this definition, I do know that the men that fall within my ideal that I have had the pleasure of encountering tend to not to prefer a monogamous committed relationship -not- because of the partners available to them (though it could be argued that given a suitably desired partner they would change their tune), but because their sexual/social personalities do not lend themselves to practical companionship. They -like- being alone. They -like- being unconstrained. It is not because of the ability to sleep with whomever they like, that is only a side effect of the entire picture of their social scheme.

    “you think men are not frustrated and angry? or that they are but it is not a problem? please explain.”

    I think there are men that are frustrated and angry, just as there are women that are frustrated and angry. And there are people who are disappointed that they don’t live in their dream home, buy their dream car, or are saddled with debt. This isn’t utopia. People suffer, people are unhappy, people are angry, people constantly want want want and are never satisfied. I do not believe it is a problem that men are frustrated and angry (though some of their behaviors can be a problem), I believe it is a problem that so many of them (and others) project this anger externally and do not bother to -do- anything about it on a personal level, other than sit and bitch about it, and that this is actually perceived as acceptable behavior.

    “‘angry externalizing’ is a regrettable, but unavoidable side effect of a situation where most men are not desirable for sex.”

    No, angry externalizing is a side effect of the way we are socialized in an individualistic society.

    “you seem to want to brush this off as men’s personal problem which they shouldn’t bother you with”

    It’s funny, in a way. I have had so many men ask me for lessons on how to kiss, how to pick up, how to fuck, how to banter. I’ve sat down with these guys and worked it through with them. I’ve slept with some of these guys in order to teach them a little and show them what it is like to be desired, how to feel desirable, because I do feel that it is unfair how our culture expects men to be on a sexual level.

    But it is a personal problem. It’s a problem a good deal of men have, but it is still personal. The ones that I’ve worked with have been men that have realized they are inexperienced in some regard and had the ability to acknowledge that to a woman. -They- did it. -They- realized. -They- took the steps needed.

    If a person is unsatisfied, who is responsible for helping them achieve satisfaction? Their neighbor? Their first grade teacher? Their parents? The government? Their boss?

    “but you say yourself that accepting one’s limitations is ‘decidedly not masculine’.”

    It is. It’s a social hurdle to leap over, admitting weakness. But it is simply that: a hurdle.

    “many men accept their lot anyway — and these get laid even less. so what you say “would allow growth” promises no growth for men at all.”

    There is a decided difference between throwing up one’s hands and declaring things are the way they are, there’s no point trying, and accepting that one has a limitation that needs to be overcome. If we do not accept that there is a problem, then we cannot attempt to solve it.

    “but the positive ideal of feminism is equality. not raising females so that men would raise even further to maintain their superiority.”

    Yes, but that is feminism. This is reality. I like to think of it as a sexual arms race.

    “but from this i take your view to be that men should dominate after all. correct?”

    Incorrect, but correct. Personally, I do not believe that I have any say in the Way Society Should Be. I prefer my partner to dominate or match me in most aspects of our relationship. Do I believe that one group of people should dominate based solely off their physical traits? No. Do I believe in parading up and down demanding equal rights for women that only want the “good” parts of equality and none of the “bad”? No.

    “the problems remain: you can’t expect the hottest guy who will fuck you to commit to you anymore than a guy can expect the hottest girl who will talk to him to fuck him.”

    I can’t expect the ugliest guy to commit to me, either, if it’s not in his personality or his desire. It ceases to become about looks, but about the value that people place on their particular looks.

    “a monogamous market promises relationship and sex for everyone — giving the average woman more relationship and the average man more sex.”

    Monogamy does not guarantee sex with your partner, only that you won’t be having sex with anyone else.

    Not that I disagree with monogamy, it is my relationship of choice. But it isn’t the problem-solver you present it as here. There are still going to be people of both sexes that are going to be undesirable, just as there are going to be people of both sexes that are going to have scads of competition for their attention. As long as we are reproducing and people are able to date anything over 18, there will be those left behind. It’s not “fair”, but we were never guaranteed fairness. But one is responsible for one’s own happiness, just as one is responsible for one’s own misery. Angry and frustrated men need to find their individual solutions for happiness.

    As a supporting side thought, just looking around the PUA blogosphere, there are so many examples of men that used to never get laid that now get laid all the time… but they’re still angry. They’re still not happy. Do you think more sex will solve that? How much validation do they need before they stop taking out their issues on these women that they’re doing such damage to?

  5. Doug1 Says:

    Overall, girls do by far the most slut shaming, especially girls of middle and upper middle activeness. Most 9s and 10s don’t much bother it’s been my obvervation. 5’s, 6’s and 7’s are another matter entirely, particularly those who are maintaining a good girl image.

    Among guys it’s largely those of middle and lower social attractiveness who will slut shame, and well as older guys who are married or thinking along those lines.

    That’s what I’ve observed, both in the real world and online forums that touch on these subjects.

    However there’s a difference between expending energy on slut shaming and engaging in slut analysis. For example, I think there’s nothing inconsistent about a guy who’s genuinely alpha in his ability to quickly seduce hot girls to have what might turn out to be just casual sex with him, also being clear that he’d never chose a girls with real high numbers for an emotionally committed LTR, or especially for an emotionally and financially committed marriage or any other child bearing and raising arrangement. Roissy is someone who on the net at least does both. I doubt however he spends much time or energy in his real meatspace life in slut shaming. He has said he doesn’t – it’s bad for a player’s hit rate, after all.

    My view, and Roissy’s it’s plain as well, is that there’s nothing necessarily wrong with sluts of whatever degree of experience, as people, nor as casual sex playmates. Many will have become hardened or very hardened, but not all to any unpleasant degree for just fun and games; that can be felt on a cases by case basis.

    The very widely held theory (backed by observation and experience) in the Roissyshere though, is that a girl with lots and lots of prior sex partners, some of whom will have broker her heart and some of whom she will have likely casually discarded despite their fervent attraction and thereby broken their hearts, is that whatever their merits and demerits for casual sex, and there and generally both in different measure, such girls tend to make less good, or anyway less reliable, long term sexual and emotional partners – not to mention hoped to be life long ones. This is for two basic related reasons: 1) at some point a girl’s tendency to become emotionally bonded with a man she’s having good or great passionate sex with, tends to become dulled or diluted such that she no longer involuntarily hind brain pair bonds emotionally nearly as strongly with her monogamous sexual partner of the moment, and such that continuing a relationship with him becomes almost entirely a conscious choice not compelled by a sense of emotional longing or need (this is often described as more mature, or adult, love these days by experienced women); and 2) the odds that the man a slut who has say slept with say 100 men (to keep things analytically fairly simple), chooses as her marriage mate when she’s in her mid 20s on up, as a suitably loyal, reliable, and day to day compatible life partner and father of her intended children, and who is willing to settle down with for the same ends, is also the most thrilling sexual partner of her life, or even in the top 5 or 10% in that regard, are very, very low.

    This later is often referred to dismissively by feminist sluts as “male insecurity”. In reality, although this is likely to cut most sharply and devastatingly against betas and even greater betas (which later often in most respects fill many women’s bill for having the overall best husband and father qualities) as their relationship with a mega slut ages, it will more often than not cut against lesser alphas and alphas as well, especially if they go 1) as hot an emotionally compatible and smart girl as they can get, and 2) don’t care that she’s slept with scores of guys before him. This feminist shaming of male insecurity does tend to shut most guys up, temporarily, on this subject even if they’re alphas, unless everyone in the audience knows they are. It doesn’t change most guys’ minds however, whatever their sex rank, and if anything tends to cement their views. That is if they’ve ever been exposed to the evo psych derived Roissyshere view on this subject, to counter the pervasive slut permissions broadcast throughout our popular media entertainment culture by feminists and their allies.

    Now compare this triple digits slut of very wide sexual experience who’s has a whole lot of bad boy thrilling alphas under her belt, and some all around super guy leader alphas type(s) as well (who likely crushed her when they moved on, if any of them (or more likely he) lingered with her at all (and inevitably a bunch of turned out to be or she knew to be higher betas and betas also), with a girl who’s of equal hotness, let’s say a middle 7, who’s only had 3 sexual partners prior to the lesser alpha with whom she’s engaged to be married, all of who she’s had long term term relationships with because she doesn’t do sex any other way and who largely for that reason were all no higher than greater betas, or maybe, possibly one lesser alpha – (if she were an 8 that last would be more likely). Which rank 7 girl do you think would be a better LTR or marriage bet for a greater beta, or lesser alpha male (male 7 or 8)? For that matter, which girl would be a safer American marriage 2.0 bet for a solid alpha (9), all things but slut history being equal? Make her an 8, slutty versus good girl versions, and you get the same result, only more so for the greater beta (perhaps unrealistic anyway these days) and lesser alpha guys.

    There you have it.

    Of course as in all things human there will be exceptions. Some 7 level girls with 80 sex partners in their history will be able to, and in fact unable to not, pair bond in a deeply and emotionally durable way with a less or solid alpha male who sufficiently rings her bell in other ways too. Or anyway I’m willing to accept this is within the realm of possibility. I’ve never experienced it, or really heard about it either in ways I fully believe and trust. One does tend to wonder why this alpha male who can pull our slut 7 so much, doesn’t go with an 8 if he’s an 8, or a female 9 if he’s a 9, of the less experienced variety who will bond just as strongly or likely a lol more strongly and durably with him.

    Note what I’m saying is different from merely saying the marriage of a super slut with 100 partners prior to the man she married lasted for 40 years and continues, or even that she never (she and he claim) cheated on him. Again I think that’s pretty unlikely but this at least I know can and does happen. Women can and do decide to just go that way after a time. But that doesn’t mean her feeling deeply and compulsively pair bonded to her husband was part of what made it work for the first four years or for the duration. It means she kept making that conscious choice, is what I’m positing, without that emotional aid. Lots of women don’t do that after awhile in our current American culture, with all it’s encouraging of married women to “just follow their heart” and so on.

    Almost all girls of wide sexual experience will strong resist this analysis for obviously self serving reasons. Since they’re already sluts and can’t change that (only try to hide it as almost all in reality do come husband hunting time), for ego and optimism serving reasons they almost have to, unless they’re unusually detached in their modes of thinking. Few girls really are. Doesn’t go with the gender, by and large.

    Poetry, I’m particularly interested in your reaction to this, if you see it so long after your last contribution to this thread. It’s not at all intended as an attack, though I suppose it has to be felt that way at least to some extent by a girl with lots of prior sex partners. It obviously only applies to marital or having a child together type decisions, in my mind.

  6. Doug1 Says:

    Poetry–

    “f the female portion of the population shifts up a level, it causes a demand for the male portion to shift up as well. Adapt or die.”

    Girls don’t “shift up” in attractiveness to men by having had lots of sex partners. They may and usually do become easier for a given hotness of man to get for sex a time or three, but they don’t become more desirable to very many men because of the width of their experience — whatever men trying to bed or keep bedding them say to help seal the deal.

    Girls DO however “shift up” in how hard they are to please as they experience more an more sexual partners, some of whom are very thrilling and great in bed.

    Hence for a given degree of alpha, not to mention a greater beta, widely experienced sluts are poor marriage bets. Stands to reason, and is born out by experience. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior among we humans. People can change yes. They just don’t in their basic behavior patterns all that often, at least not durably. Particularly where the most basic and animal sorts of instincts and passions are involved.

  7. Doug1 Says:

    Stage Two–

    “Slut is a term used to shame women who have a lot of sex.”

    NO!!! This is fundamentally, rather than trivially wrong, I’ve realized. The term slut is virtually NEVER used to shame women for that.

    Virtually no one has a problem with women who have a lot of sex, and enjoy it — when it’s with their boyfriend or certainly husband.

    Instead this is what’s actually true about the common use of the word “slut”:

    “Slut is used to shame women who have sex with a lot of different men.”

    • stagetwo Says:

      doug, that’s what i meant. but i suspect the reason why i didn’t write it has to do with an interesting complication…

      we could alternatively define ‘slut’ as ‘a woman known to have a lot of sex’. this definition is very different in meaning, but it succesfully identifies essentially the same group of women (intesionally different, extensionally equivalent). when a woman is known to have a lot of sex, it typically is with more than one man. for women in monogamous relationship it is seldom known how much sex they have. and if it were public knowledge, then, she might also still be considered a slut.

      this further suggests that the key offence defining a woman as a slut might not be too much sex or sex with too many, but indiscretion.

  8. Sluthood In Commentary | Poetry of Flesh Says:

    […] more a reply to what is becoming a (physically) lengthy discussion over at StageTwo’s blog on this particular post.  Some questions have been raised and I really don’t feel like writing six pages (okay, not […]

  9. masculineffort Says:

    Agreed! I do not understand two things straight men do. #1: shaming sluts. #2: Hating gay men. The phenomenal of sluts and gay men is extremely beneficial to straight men. Gay men mean less competitors for pussy. And more sluts mean easier access to sex. I guess most men are just stupid. Very stupid.

    The best answer to the problem you mention? No clue. I guess only time will tell the answer. But I do believe that unrestrained game is part of the answer.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: